No, the reason I reverted it is https://github.com/znc/znc/issues/1165#issuecomment-156880251 (point 2.)
To repeat myself: If you guys (packagers) all agree on how this file should look like, I'm fine with it too. If you want to maintain a separate unit file for Debian which is different from other distros, I'm not in a position to stop you from doing this. I'm happy to accept changes upstream, if that makes packagers' life easier. You can join that discussion if you disagree with @seblu and @Philantrop As for _znc username, perhaps that could be either a Debian-specific one-line patch, or e.g. a env variable used by ./configure... 29.12.2015 22:30, Eric Dorland пишет: > * Alexey Sokolov (ale...@asokolov.org) wrote: >> Hi Eric, Does the service file need to be different from the >> included one? >> (https://github.com/znc/znc/blob/master/znc.service.in) > > Currently it does, because the patch as is creates a _znc user > rather than znc to avoid namespace collision. It also uses the > --datadir flag to avoid the .znc directory. It also uses > ConditionFileNotEmpty to prevent startup if it's not configured. We > don't have to do these things but they all seem useful to me. > There's really room to go further with various systemd protection > settings, but I didn't want to overcomplicate the diff. > >> Also please check the recent discussion about it at >> https://github.com/znc/znc/issues/1165 > > Thanks for pointing this out. There's a lot of issues to intermixed > in this bug report. It looks like the reason they reverted the > --datadir change was because it broke existing users, which is fair > but we don't have that problem in Debian. I think having a unified > unit file would be good but I don't think that should tie hands > against good improvements. >
